Among the most important findings from the analysis is that immigrants with degrees from abroad have lower hourly earnings than their counterparts with similar degrees from U.S. colleges and universities, although other variables affect earnings and may, in fact, increase them. The earnings disadvantage for those with lower English language proficiencies and those who earned their degrees in Central and South America were especially large. College educated immigrants with degrees in computer and information sciences, health and medical sciences, and engineering fields had the largest earnings advantages among all college majors analyzed. For more detailed information, we encourage interested parties to examine the data analysis discussions in the full report.

The noncompetitive aspect of the proposal would maintain the formula approach, based on population and income data, to providing resources to states. That is, states would not have to compete for their base funding for Perkins. However, prior to receiving its base funding , each state would have to demonstrate that it has met, or will be able to meet, conditions that signal its readiness both to support its local programs and to create an environment where innovation can flourish.

The competitive aspect of the proposal includes the CTE Transformation and Innovation Fund, to be administered by the U.S. Department of Education, and to be open to both local district and state applicants. Competition is also woven into the Blueprint through the expectation that states would use the results of state competitions to distribute their allocations of Perkins funding to local consortia of LEA’s, IHE’s, and their partners.

There are three major reasons for introducing competitive funding. First, competition will incentivize CTE programming that meets higher quality standards and is more responsive to the needs of the labor market. Second, research and evaluation findings indicate that competition can increase cost-effectiveness, improve student performance, and create a system better tailored to student needs. Third, feedback from OVAE’s CTE community conversations suggests that the current distribution of funding within states by formula has at times resulted in uneven quality and inequitable access to programs that lead to skilled, well-paying jobs.

The Blueprint views competition, as supported by appropriate equity provisions, as an opportunity to improve student access to high-quality CTE programs. The key equity provisions in the Blueprint are (1) a requirement for each state to review its policies and procedures and to develop a plan to change any of those that pose a barrier to access, participation, quality, and performance; (2) an increase in state leadership funding to ensure more equitable access and participation for those in institutionalized settings, including disabled and incarcerated persons, and for equitable inclusion of students by gender, race, ethnicity, English proficiency, disability, and poverty; and (3) performance-based funding so states reward local consortia for exceeding negotiated performance targets and narrowing or closing equity gaps.

In sum, the Blueprint seeks to ensure that the use of competitive models to maximize the rigor, responsiveness, and results of CTE programs does not occur at the expense of providing equitable access to high-quality CTE programs for all students, regardless of their background or circumstances.